why is it so difficult to find a good school

[poppytin]

Why are almost schools with good academic performance are either independent, grammar, or faith schools? What would you do if you have an academically bright child but lived in an area without independent nor grammar and would not like your child to attend faith schools? Since most schools have adopted academy status, shouldn't they remove catchment criteria and serve as many good pupils as possible?

Some schools (paticularly grammar schools) are very selective about who they let into the 6th form. Others (take the comp where my DCs go as an example) are willing to take any young person who is prepared to put some effort in.

seeker I'm an utter Pollyanna - never say never. Best of luck with it.

Thank you wordfactory.

But my point really is that, while this is not the school I would have chosen for him, and it has many problems, I am as sure as I can be that ds will do well. He is almost certain to be in the 35% that get "good" - in mumsnet terms - results. And the bits that the school can't provide, we can. So I do think people should worry less about the "good" school thing.

In theory I know you are right seeker but in practise it's much harder no?
You want to feel relaxed and have faith...well you get what I'm saying. You wouldn't be appealing if you didn't get it.

But the not bright child is so very well catered for in so many of the excellent community schools (that MNers simply tend to avoid since there are not enough "bright" kids there or not enough "people like us").

One local community school near me (Lambeth Academy) does brilliantly with all sort of level of ability (including SEN) - its just avoided by the middle classes (witness the complete lack of mention of this school whenever SW london schools are discusse on this forum)!

SchoolNightmare, you speak the truth, I agree with every word.

And would add that good schools academically often seem to be those with a good programme of other stuff too, and with the organisation and commitment to deliver in a way that means take up is high and the quality high. You can supplement outside school too, but the same arguments apply.

I agree, SchoolsNightmare - and accuracy, understanding the facts, and having up to date knowledge of a school all contribute to making a judgement about whether the school is actually a place your child will thrive or not are all crucial.

Myths in any direction of the argument are not helpful.

So to sum up - except in exceptional circumstances, it's not. HTH .

My son, has just been accepted for a place in one of the most sought after comprehensive faith schools in London (and no we don't live anywhere near the school in a posh part of London, quite the opposite in fact). The question that has always baffled me is that, if this school can achieve results quite close to that of the private schools, why can't other comprehensives do the same? What are they doing that the other aren't?

The conclusion I came to was that they seem to echo the private school set up, as in house groups, duke of Edinburgh awards and a manned homework room specifically set up to complete your homework after school.

Just because one is not religious,doesn't mean they are not deserving of a good education, so shouldn't we as a society be looking at what's working and emulate it instead of slating it?

For the record, my son's current school has the kids jumping off the tables and having a field day every Monday when the main teacher is replaced by a support teacher. Every Monday therefore, my son will not learn a thing! If people want to put their kids in an environment that reduces that situation, why is that deemed as elitist or snooty, or whatever label people like to give it? Yes, poor performing schools still produce great children, I guess what the poster is wanting to know is how to increase that probability.

Agree too that GCSE measure is more important than A level tables as one can always move at 6th form stage.

TheDiary - see my posts below re what to takes to get into a school such as you describe. As I understand it families have to be very committed to achieving the criteria that will get a child into the school. That is a focussed family, with self discipline or at least the framework of family discipline driven by parents and adopted by the child. And then the school having the same focussed ambitious ethos, presumably. I am sure what you say about what happens within the school explains much but surely the effort needed to get into the school, and to be prepared to travel consdierable distances discounts any family who is 'wha'ever' about education!

shouldn't we as a society be looking at what's working and emulate it instead of slating it?

Of course. My DDs school also has 'house groups, duke of Edinburgh awards and a manned homework room specifically set up to complete your homework after school.' - its a GS, but I don't think its really down to that any more dairy's being religious. That sort of thing takes good leadership (someone has to man those HW rooms; someone has to run the inter-house events; someone has to manage DofE...that one probably is very difficult without parental involvement I'd imagine)

Diary I don't think you need to look much further than the 2011 GCSE results tables to be a little less baffled.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16730017

In these tables, GCSE results are plotted against a school's intake at 11. Many of the high achieving faith schools have admissions criteria which seem to have more or less filtered out low ability children while ensuring the proportion of high ability (level 5) children is fairly similar to that of a less selective grammar school.

While I am sure the school your son will be attending offers many good things, it does not achieve its impressive results with a representative cross-section of children.

Of course. My DDs school also has 'house groups, duke of Edinburgh awards and a manned homework room specifically set up to complete your homework after school.' - its a GS, but I don't think its really down to that any more dairy's being religious. That sort of thing takes good leadership (someone has to man those HW rooms; someone has to run the inter-house events; someone has to manage DofE...that one probably is very difficult without parental involvement I'd imagine)
My Dcs' very normal comp have all of that as well.

The high school my ds is going to has all those things too- most schools do. I don't think they are a particularly private school thing.

lets not be under any illusions here that if you are prepared to put "effort" in you can get your child into the best state school - not everyone has the advantage of being able to move , or drive miles, or even pretend they are a particular faith or even pay for tutoring to get their child into a selective state. For a large proportion of society this is simply not possible. This does not mean that those parents who cant do not care about their child's education either!

cecily - I know the data are in the tables (for each school) but I can't find the plot you describe (or an obvious way to generate it)

@CecilyP - Hi there, the selection, after siblings, is by random allocation. As a comprehensive, the school by law, on the basis of the banding test, has to allocate 25% of the places to the top performing group, 50% to the middle and 25% to the lower performing group, which is how I believe, many academies are run. I have also read somewhere, that these schools simply 'attract' high performing pupils. What is interesting about this statement, is that, despite the parents in my son's current faith primary school having six choices just like me and I would say around 80% of them probably being eligible in terms of church attendance etc, etc, for a place, only two applied. Now call it coincidence, but the two that applied are both in the top group at school working at level 5/6. They will also both, have to put themselves out to get there. It is not the school down the road, but it was the price both parents and child was prepared to pay. Moreover, eligibility for the school we're attending is not area dependent, but by faith and as such we'll be traveling in from a, not at all very posh part of South East London,to get there.

@Bruffin and @ Seeker: I agree that leadership has a lot to do with things. My son has been educated in both private and state schools, and certainly, when he was in the private sector, I just noticed that the house groups really helped to drive and inspire the kids. I looked at in excess of 18 secondary schools over 2 years (obsessive I know) and in London spotted only 2 comprehensive schools (not grammars as they also have them) that has this set up and they were the two top performing comprehensives. I appreciate however that 18, is by no means enough to make comparisons for the entire comprehensive school system. In truth, I don't know, I'm grappling for reasons as to why there is such a disparity in the statistics, and from observation, that is the only thing I could think of. When he starts, I'll have a better idea. I want a decent education for all kids, regardless of their beliefs, so I'm always racking my brain as to why some schools do so great and some don't.

@ohmydarling: The religion aspect was a way of life and not one that had to be 'done' to get my son into the school - which includes Church every Sunday, which we love. I will not be moving, my son will be traveling for thirty minutes on the train, his friend who was also offered a place, forty minutes - that is not for everyone. Many will prefer to stay local - it's a matter of choice. We wanted to travel for thirty minutes to increase the probability of getting better grades (because of course, life has no guarantees). As a back up, we did apply to the selective grammars. There was no way I could afford the extensive tutoring my peer group were paying for. I did a bit, but ultimately, had to teach him myself with bonds books. I like you am cross about the current system. Grammar's should be means tested and like my original post stressed, just because one is not of a particular faith should by no means mean that their child is not deserving of a decent education. My gripe is this. The aspirations of many of the teachers and indeed some parents, (because parent power can move mountains) is often very questionable www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/apr/27/state-school-students-oxbridge. No kid is smarter than another, is what the teachers and indeed some parents too, believe is possible.

@blu Hi there, If you're 'wha'ever' about education, then once again, I think that's a matter of choice. We simply don't have that luxury. Moreover, I'm a single mum with ZERO family support, so in terms of structure, I struggle to spell the word in all honesty. I openly admit to throwing up twenty balls everyday and count it as a good day if I catch one:)

@Grimma - Your school runs that system and it's a GS. The Grammar's run it, the privates and an unknown number of comprehensives. Those that we know of are 'Good Schools'. What I'm going to research is, are there any schools that operate in this way, with poor results? That would be interesting; to establish the average gcse results A-C (inc.English and Maths), for schools who do run this system versus those that don't.

Let us know if you manage to figure it out diary.
It does seem there are some less tangible factors than what we can find in the league tables.

"Why are almost schools with good academic performance are either independent, grammar, or faith schools?"

Schools that practice selection (on entry, on whatever basis) are almost always going to have better average examination results than schools that do not practice selection. The ability to refuse children that they don't like the look of really helps schools move up league tables.

Value-added is a different issue altogether, and refers to the ability of teaching to improve a child's performance while they are at a specific school. Some schools select rigorously but then add little value.

It is, however, easier to add value when children are able and children are in relatively homogenous ability groups. Hence the much better performance of grammar schools versus comprehensives.

What bonsoir said.

I am always 'amused' when you read people shrilly (even on MN!) demanding to know why all schools can't be 'as good as Eton' on whatever; why all schools don't adopt the same evidently successful policies as private school so they'll get stellar academic results, too.

One barely knows where to begin dismantling that one, it's so bleedin' obvious!

(And half the people here on MN would be 'marching up to the school' tonight if their local state suddenly adopted the ethos and rules (and hours!) of the local private!)

Selection is all, be it by academic test, size of bank balance either via fees or selection-by-houseprice, or 'faith'. I think someone may have already pointed out how that work, ie why faith schools generally do better and it ain't necessarily to do with how pious mum and dad are!

Maybe there should be an explicit link between funding of schools and their intake. The 'better' the intake, the less resources it needs. Difficult schools should be able to recruit more staff to provide smaller class sizes (not just throwing money at expensive equipment or buildings). Maybe this already happens to some extent?

'Schools that practice selection (on entry, on whatever basis) are almost always going to have better average examination results than schools that do not practice selection. The ability to refuse children that they don't like the look of really helps schools move up league tables.'

Certainly in the application form I received and subsequently completed, did not have a space for a photograph, nor earnings or the like. There was name, address, church attendance. Surely you are not implying that just because someone has a faith they're smarter? How can the fact that one is being selected on religious belief be enough for better results? In fact, one of the highest schools in my borough is not a faith school and children are selected by distance/random allocation.

I reiterate, I am a single Mother; my son's best friend who also has a place there is from Columbia and live on a council estate.

Please check out this article: www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/mar/29/homework-linked-better-school-results?CMP=twt_gu

It quotes: Children who did well from disadvantaged backgrounds were backed by parents who valued learning and encouraged extra-curricular activities. "Parents' own resilience in the face of hardship provided a role model for their children's efforts," the research says.

Nothing to do with faith, where you live or how much you earn. Plain and simple, Aspirations! And in my view of the aspirations of both the teachers and in many cases parents too, was the deciding factor.

@Grimma, I totally agree with the funding aspect, as I know in this school they spend quite a bit and are quite resourceful with the use of 6th formers, etc., in tendering and raising the ability of the lower performing groups.

Just one other thing worth mentioning. I have friends who attend what was once deemed as a feeder school to one of these top faith schools. Leading up to the Sats, which we are doing right now, their kids, rightly or wrongly are given a paper a night for homework. My son's school over the past four weeks, was sent home with a book from Smiths and told to simply revise. Does it come as any surprise therefore that this school has something like an 80% success rate for level 5 and our school more around 10%? How, is that in anyway dependent on what you look like, where you live or the size of your bank balance (in which I would fail IN EVERY SINGLE ASPECT). One set of kids were not smarter than the other - one merely had the muscle of the brain exercised more.